JUDGMENT
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation awarding a sum of Rs. 720 payable to the respondent.
2. The respondent’s sort one Devi died as a result of an accident caused by a lorry belonging to the appellant dashing against the deceased. There is no dispute as to the death of the respondent’s son in the circumstances alleged in the petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and there is also no dispute as regards the minimum amount of Rs. 22-12-0 per mensem which has been fixed by the Commissioner as the wage which the deceased was earning at the time of his death, What is urged before me is that the father having filed this petition for compensation has not established that he is a “dependent” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d), Workmen’s Compensation Act. It is no doubt true that the mere fact that he happens to be the father of the deceased would not entitle him to receive any compensation as a “dependent” as “dependent” is defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act as “including a parent other than a widowed mother if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death.” It is therefore necessary for an applicant who is the father, when he claims compensation, to establish that he is dependent either wholly or
in part on the earnings of his deceased son. There is an allegation in the petition that he is a dependent of the deceased workman which is denied in the counter statement filed by the appellant who says that the petitioner is an able bodied cooly and is earning his livelihood and does not depend on the deceased and that the deceased’s wage was simply an additional and extra source of income for him. In his deposition as P. W. 1, the respondent has not spoken as to how he is a dependent. Very rightly there has been no cross-examination of P. W. 1 on this point and 110 answer was elicited, since it was the duty of the respondent to establish that he was a dependent.
3. But the fact remains that though the appellant denied the averment in the petition that the
respondent was a dependent he seems to have
paid, towards compensation, in response to a
claim made by the respondent, and this is evident from the evidence of C. P. W. 1 who says
that he paid Rs. 100 towards compensation on
the day of the accident and that when the par
ties came to claim the compensation, he paid
them Rs. 100 as part payment, thereby indicating
his liability to pay the balance of any amount
that may be found as compensation. Prom the
order of the Commissioner it appears to me that
the appellant has not argued this portion of the
case apparently having conceded, as could be seen
from the evidence just cited, that the father was
a dependent. On the facts of the case I hold
that the father has not become disentitled from
claiming compensation as it has been sufficiently
conceded that he is a dependent. I do not see
any error in the order of the Commissioner for
Workmen’s Compensation. The appeal is dismiss
ed with costs.